Help desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 16[edit]

Article: Suit[edit]

Hi!, this is a question for User:Andethyst

Thank you for having informed me that you reverted my change. But I insist :-) that the man's tie on that photo is not long enough - the ending is above his belt so that there is a gap, showing the shirt. A tie's ending should go down to the trousers rather than showing that gap. I think it is appropriate to say "notice that the tie is not long enough", given the fact that folks need help how to dress properly. Thanks for listening, Aristobulus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.115.169 (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk to the specific user, the place to do so is User talk:Andethyst. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...or, per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you could post on Talk:Suit, and {{ping}} Andethyst to join the conversation. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you try to persuade Andethyst, or anyone else, of such an assertion as "A tie's ending should go down to the trousers rather than showing that gap", you'll need to cite a reliable source for it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

77.0.115.169, you are apparently posting from Germany; the photo in question is of a man in Australia – do you seriously think that minor points of male fashion worldwide are all exactly the same as they are in Germany, or that everyone in a particular place has to conform to the same "rules" exactly, with no room for personal preferences? In any case, the article is about Suits, not Ties, and barely mentions let alone discusses the latter, so it is not appropriate to insert (unsupported) advice about them in a photo caption. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.175.103 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no exceptions to the proper length of a tie: The tip must be in the middle of the waistband. Those rules shall be rigorously enforced on Wikipedia. No photos of ties that are worn incorrectly! Vexations (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting all images on Commons that display improperly worn ties.^[Humor] – NJD-DE (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, delete all the other photos of fashion mistakes.^[Humor] --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BROTHER! Don't you just love people who haven't got a clue what Wikipedia is, who have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to contribute, and want to contribute it anyway? Uporządnicki (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AzseicsoK: I do like new editors who attempt to improve Wikipedia by their edits, even if they are mistaken and the edits are a net negative. Many such new editors can be helped into a productive role when they are taught what to do and what not to do.

I do not like old-timers who say that such editors haven’t got a clue [and] have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to contribute, therefore making sure they feel unwelcome and never come back. If you do not think it is worth giving help, patrolling the Help Desk might not be for you.

I am also uncomfortable with jokes dismissing the fashion note as irrelevant, frivolous, etc. I agree it is out-of-place and unsourced in the OP’s edit, but I disagree with the dismissal of such information as useless. I think fashion is roughly useless, but many people find many parts of Wikipedia useless, including parts I deeply care about. Presumably every part of Wikipedia that is not a paid editing stunt has at least one interested reader (whichever editor started the page). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: Your thoughts are well-considered; I will take your chastisement under consideration. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category help[edit]

Hi Folks!! I've forgotten howto categories. It's been a while. I created Alina Anisimova and I've created Category:Kyrgyzstan women engineers but it is not showing up in Category:Women engineers by nationality I added the base categories into Category:Kyrgyzstan women engineers, but nothig is showing. I've missed something? scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked your question to show the links to the categories. It will then make it easier to answer your question--David Biddulph (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should have put Category:Kyrgyzstan women engineers into Category:Women engineers by nationality, and not put Alina Anisimova into the latter as she is in the former. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might usefully look at a few of the other nationality entries in Category:Women engineers by nationality to see what are appropriate parent categories for Category:Kyrgyzstan women engineers. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: I really did. I'll do it. scope_creep^Talk 11:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: That worked. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed in a dispute[edit]

I need help in finding the appropriate place for reporting problems I am encountering in a disagreement with another editor. The issue is the validity of a source for verifying a significant claim in a fairly prominent article (1 million annual views). I had posted an accuracy dispute template to the section where the source was being used and explained my concerns on the article's talk page. I then had a short exchange with the editor in question who without providing what I thought was a satisfactory response removed the template. I was reluctant to reapply it, but after a lengthier discussion, it appeared my original questions were valid or at least needed a closer look. So I informed the editor I was going to post the template again and respectfully asked that he allow it to stand until other editors could provide input. He ignored that request and removed the template. It is highly unlikely that any further discussions will resolve the matter. This is the first time I have experienced a situation like this, and I'm not able to find exactly where I should post a request for assistance. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alfreet. Dispute resolution lays out the appropriate steps. --ColinFine (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Allreet, mispinged. --ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, thanks for your reply and the reference to the Dispute article. I read it (or at least the most pertinent sections) and referenced other articles as well, subjects such as warring, reverts, good faith, and so forth. I apologize for being a bit late in replying to you, because to give the other editor yet one more chance, I posted an additional comment on the talk page in question. Based on the editor's reply, I told him we were clearly at an impasse and that a third opinion seemed in order. I'm fairly certain I know what I need to do. In fact, I've added a line to the WP:Third opinion/Instructions page to make the procedure clearer to others. If you will please take a look at the last lines on the page, to verify 1) that what I said is correct and 2) that it's appropriate for me to change a help page. BTW, before retiring a couple years ago, I was a technical writer so I'm a stickler for ensuring written procedures are complete. Allreet (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic sinking[edit]

Is this footage real or fake?

https :// youtu. be/ v2p9A2bVCBw

--37.116.102.74 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The Wikipedia Help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. You could try submitting the URL to Snopes or Captain Disillusion for them to investigate. GoingBatty (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. youtu. be is somehing of a bad sign. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GrowthExperiments log[edit]

An item popped up on my Watchlist for this log. Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: The full log is at Special:Log/growthexperiments – earlier some folks were playing around with the mentor/mentee features which are part of the Growth Team project. If you've watchlisted the talk page of any of the "claimed" users, it would show up as a log event. DanCherek (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek: Perfect. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors on the spectrum[edit]

I've recently encountered issues that might have not happened if other editors knew the editor in question was on the spectrum. Do we have an essay to inform editors that it's worth considering, and how to inoffensively ask? valereee (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is theoretically an essay. It's horrifically offensive and I would have it MfDed in seconds if I thought that'd be productive. Such is the tricky part -- individual views of "what autism means in the context of Wikipedia" are so wildly disparate that I'm not sure what consensus could be sought here. (One particular issue I've noticed coming up is that the people who publicly disclose autism, such as on their userpages, are a very unrepresentative sample of all editors the term can be applied to, in ways that can perpetuate misconceptions.) Vaticidalprophet 23:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the rub. It's horrifically offensive to ask. But in the case I'm looking at, if folks had realized...maybe there would have been a better outcome. valereee (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not necessarily offensive to ask. What can be offensive is what people come in with -- including what people who [identify with the term/consider the term relevant to their own Wikipedia editing] come in with. The tricky thing, as it is, is that a lot of Wikipedia disputes that are outside identified as "someone is being misunderstood for being autistic" are really "someone is being misunderstood because the way they are autistic is not the way their interlocutor is autistic". Very often the response to "hey, that guy's doing that because he's autistic" is "yeah, so am I and I'm not doing that" -- that is, the fact someone happens to think in a way divergent from the mainstream cultural context is of fairly complicated relevance to an environment itself divergent from the mainstream cultural context. (And in many cases where one or both participants wouldn't self-identify with the term, it could still be reasonably applicable.) Tamzin's solution is the best I've found. Vaticidalprophet 00:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that seems to be simply a link to Tamzin's user? valereee (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ping so she can explain it if she wants -- I don't trust myself not to butcher the explanation :) Vaticidalprophet 01:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I assume Vati is referring to this, from User:Tamzin § Four rules I try to follow:

I contend that every person who edits Wikipedia without compensation and in good faith has a mind that works a bit differently from the rest of the society. As a practical matter this means that I try to treat everyone like they're somewhere on the autism spectrum... since most of them either are or have subclinical symptoms thereof. Even if someone isn't on or near the spectrum, there's still no harm done by treating them with a little extra AGF and putting a bit more thought into how I phrase things.

There's a pinned conversation on my talkpage about exactly what I mean by that, which can be summarized as: We edit Wikipedia because we see things that need to be a certain way but aren't. For some of us, that's an autistic trait. For others, it's a neurodivergent-but-not-autistic trait. (It comes up in ADHD and anxiety disorders, for instance.) And for others, it's neither of the above... but still by definition a sentiment that sets them apart from the general population. I say "by definition" because if most people cared as much about fixing things that aren't right as Wikipedians do, most people would be Wikipedians. And so most conflict we see on Wikipedia comes from, as Vati alludes to, one person needing things to be right in one way, and another person needing things to be right in another way. Hence the tendency that some of our bitterest disputes are about the most trivial things. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]